![](\"http:\/\/truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/11\/la-oe-0119-brotherton-conspiracy-theory-201601-001.jpg?w=620\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA lone protester in Dallas for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in 2013. (LA Times photo)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Attempt to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission Report\u00a0has become the ultimate weapon against dissent<\/h1>\n
The ultimate weapon against dissent<\/p>\n
\u201cNow it\u2019s conspiracy \u2013 they\u2019ve made that something that should not even be entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn\u2019t happen, you\u2019re a kook, you\u2019re a conspiracy buff!\u201d <\/em>\u2013 George Carlin<\/p>\n By Craig McKee<\/strong><\/p>\n It has been called\u00a0the \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d conspiracy.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s not just a theory, it\u2019s a fact. And like more than a few conspiracies it involves the Central Intelligence Agency \u2013 specifically a campaign in the 1960s to discredit those challenging the findings of the Warren Commission in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The agency achieved this by linking challenges to the official story with \u201cconspiracy theories.\u201d<\/p>\n It is known as CIA dispatch #1035-960. It was distributed in 1967 but not released to the public until 1976 following a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times<\/em>. On the dispatch were marked \u201cPSYCH\u201d (for psychological warfare) and <\/span>\u201cdestroy when no longer needed,\u201d and the subject line was, \u201cConcerning Criticism of the Warren Report.\u201d<\/p>\n Not only was the CIA worried that too many people did not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone (a poll was mentioned indicating that 46 percent of Americans had doubts about this), but they were also reacting with alarm to suspicions that the agency itself \u2013 or even then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson \u2013 might have been involved.<\/p>\n Thanks to the early work of researchers like Mark Lane, author of Rush to Judgment<\/em>, the holes and impossibilities in the official version of the JFK coup were being exposed. People had reason to be suspicious of the \u201cmagic bullet\u201d theory, the claim that no shots came from the grassy knoll, the assertion that Oswald both planned and carried out the shooting by himself, and the awfully convenient murder of Oswald by mob-connected Jack Ruby.<\/p>\n The idea was that the dispatch would encourage the CIA\u2019s \u201celite contacts\u201d and \u201cpropaganda assets\u201d to counter the criticism by discrediting the messengers: impugning their motives, dismissing their research, and even suggesting they might be Communists. The hope was to convince the public that the Warren Commission did the most thorough job possible, that critics\u2019 charges lacked foundation, and that \u201cspeculative discussion\u201d only plays into the hands of the opposition. It called for its assets in the media to produce news features and book reviews to counter the Warren Commission critics. The CIA would even provide background information that could be used towards this end.<\/p>\n The dispatch even used the word \u201cploy\u201d to describe the plan. The ploy would accuse critics of being politically motivated, financially motivated, wedded to a theory before the evidence was in, hasty and inaccurate in their research, and infatuated with their own theories. Today, those same charges are commonly made against those who question official stories of many events.<\/p>\n As it happens, the term conspiracy theory had been around for decades before that, but it became more common after the dispatch \u2013 a lot more. As James Tracy points out in an article <\/a>in Global Research<\/em>, the New York Times <\/em>database contains 30 mentions of \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d between 1870 and 1960. The term shows up 46 times in the 1960s alone. But that was just the beginning of the explosion in the use of the term. Between 2000 and 2009, for example, it was found 728 times in the Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n Prior to the dispatch, the term was relatively neutral. It just meant a theory about a conspiracy. But after 1035-960, it began to take on a different connotation. Today, the term is usually associated with ridicule. The suggestions in the dispatch are now used unthinkingly by journalists and members of the public to ridicule \u201cconspiracy theorists.\u201d Now, we don\u2019t have to be told to do this, it has become ingrained in how we see the world.<\/p>\n In his book Conspiracy Theory in America<\/em>, Lance DeHaven-Smith calls the Kennedy assassination the \u201cRosetta Stone\u201d for understanding the origins of the conspiracy theory meme. He writes:<\/p>\n The weaponization of \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d all started with JFK.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe conspiracy theory label took form and gained meaning over a period of several years (or longer) in the context of efforts by the CIA, one of the world\u2019s leading experts in psychological warfare, to deflect accusations that officials at the highest levels of the American government were complicit in Kennedy\u2019s murder. \u2026 The CIA\u2019s campaign to popularize the term \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.\u201d (page 25)<\/p>\n Simply put, \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d is about forbidden thought and forbidden speech. It means stop thinking, stop questioning or risk being labeled a tin-foil-hat-wearing kook who probably thinks Elvis is still alive and extra-terrestrials secretly run the government. And most of the time it works. All someone has to do is say you are pushing a conspiracy theory and actual arguments become unnecessary. This stops discussion and even rational thought. It brings out extreme condescension in those who otherwise might be pleasant and reasonably intelligent. No actual evidence needs to be offered because a conspiracy theory is, by its very nature, assumed to be a lunatic idea that is not supported by facts.<\/p>\n DeHaven-Smith writes that those who mock conspiracy theories out of hand \u201clump together a hodgepodge of speculations about government intrigue, declare them all \u2018conspiracy theories,\u2019 and then, on the basis of the most improbable claims among them, argue that any and all unsubstantiated suspicions of elite political crimes are far-fetched fantasies destructive of public trust.\u201d\u2013 (page 3)<\/p>\n The most brilliant thing about this propaganda weapon is that the uncritical population it targets propagates it freely without even realizing its purpose or understanding its devastating effects. They don\u2019t see that they are helping those with power to hide their crimes. This saves the elites from having to face some pretty serious questions about what they\u2019re doing to our world. It has the power to disguise the most outrageous acts of deception and destruction \u2013 and those who commit them.<\/p>\n Media proves to be an \u2018asset\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n The mass media has turned this government-promoted meme into something truly powerful through the incessant production of articles and TV reports that dismiss any doubts about things like 9\/11, JFK, Sandy Hook, or the Moon landings. Article after article examines the conspiracy theory \u201cphenomenon\u201d and how it should be understood in terms of the psychological makeup of those who fall under its spell. We also hear about how amazing it is that these theories don\u2019t seem to fade away (implying they persist despite having been proven wrong).<\/p>\n When a conspiracy theory is referred to in a mainstream article it will often be accompanied by adjectives like \u201cbizarre.\u201d The Week<\/em> from the UK makes this work effectively by choosing the most implausible theory they could to lead off an article<\/a> entitled, \u201c\u2019Elvis is alive\u2019 and ten more top conspiracy theories\u201d with the subheading, \u201cFrom faked moon landings to reptiles ruling over us, we present the most bizarre theories out there.\u201d<\/p>\n The piece addresses 9\/11, the JFK assassination, the CIA\u2019s MKUltra mind control program, Area 51, and a claim I didn\u2019t even know existed that singer Beyonc\u00e9 has been replaced by her own clone. So the position that the Moon landings were faked and 9\/11 was an inside job (both supported by copious amounts of evidence) get lumped in with reptiles, Elvis, and a double dose of Beyonc\u00e9.<\/p>\n The article routinely poses questions like, Why do people still believe these theories (as if we should all figure out they\u2019re wrong eventually\u2026)? What is it in our brain that makes conspiracies so attractive (apparently we crave explanations for otherwise inexplicable events, often violent ones)?<\/p>\n In fact, one can\u2019t help feeling like these articles follow some kind of script \u2026 Wait, no, I didn\u2019t say that.<\/p>\n The Raw Story<\/em> web site, published a piece<\/a> on September 11, 2016 with the headline \u201cHere\u2019s our handy guide to 9\/11 conspiracy theories \u2014 and how we know they\u2019re b*llshit\u201d. The article explains to us why we should dismiss the \u201ctheories\u201d they have chosen to highlight. Like, \u201c9\/11 never happened.\u201d (I had never heard this one, but apparently it\u2019s b*llshit.)<\/p>\n The writer explains: \u201cThese theories encompass the full range of delusional hooey, including the idea that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, which an astonishing number of people believe in spite of the piles of evidence to the contrary.\u201d<\/p>\n As usual, they don\u2019t share any of that evidence with us. And, of course, the psychological angle isn\u2019t left out of the article:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we look at the real psychological motivations behind conspiracy mongering, it becomes clear that the people who believe this kind of rot take comfort in the fact that it helps them make a kind of sense out of a random and confusing world. To believe that everything happens because of a huge, all-encompassing plot projects a coherent narrative on to an out-of-control world and gives the lunk-headed believer a sense of specialness and purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n Slate<\/em> offered its own brand of pop psychology with this piece<\/a>: \u201cConspiracy Theorists Aren\u2019t Really Skeptics: The fascinating psychology of people who know the real truth about JFK, UFOs, and 9\/11.\u201d<\/p>\n From the article: \u201cThe more you see the world this way\u2014full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence\u2014the more likely you are to accept conspiracy theories of all kinds. Once you buy into the first theory, with its premises of coordination, efficacy, and secrecy, the next seems that much more plausible.\u201d<\/p>\n Harvard law professor and former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein, author of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas, <\/em>has actually called for the infiltration and disruption of groups that in some way further \u201cconspiracy theories.\u201d In a Bloomberg<\/em> article<\/a>entitled, \u201cPssst! Everything\u2019s a Conspiracy,\u201d Sunstein asks rhetorically why people accept these obviously crazy theories:<\/p>\n \u201cThe first explanation points to people\u2019s predispositions. Some of us count as \u201cconspiracists\u201d in the sense that we have a strong inclination to accept such theories. Not surprisingly, conspiracists tend to have a sense of personal powerlessness; they are also more likely to conspire themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s also about how people react to terrible events, he explains. \u201cSuch events produce outrage, suspicion and fear. Sometimes the perpetrator is self-evident, as in the case of many terrorist attacks, but if there is no clear perpetrator \u2013 as with a missing plane, a child\u2019s disability or the outbreak of a disease \u2013 people might go hunting for the malicious agent behind it all.\u201d<\/p>\n With Sunstein leading the charge, a new element has been introduced into the discussion of conspiracy theories. They are not only to be mocked and dismissed with a chuckle anymore; now they are to be feared and, if at all possible, stopped.<\/p>\n For example, an article <\/a>by Kurt Eichenwald appeared in Newsweek<\/em> in May 2014 under the title, \u201cThe Plots to Destroy America: Conspiracy theories are a clear and present danger.\u201d As befitting the media outlet, the tone is much more serious than in articles mentioned above. Eichenwald quotes Brendan Nyhan, a \u201cresearcher of conspiracy theories\u201d and an assistant professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College:<\/p>\n \u201cThe reason we should worry about conspiracy theories and misinformation is that they distort the debate that is crucial to democracy. They divert attention from the real issue and issues of concern that public officials should be debating.\u201d<\/p>\n Nyhan offers this familiar explanation for how the inner minds of conspiracy theorists work: \u201cResearchers agree; conspiracy theories are espoused by people at every level of society seeking ways of calming the chaos of life, sometimes by simply reinforcing convictions. \u201cThe world around us can feel more disordered and chaotic for various reasons,\u2019\u2019 he explains. \u201cConspiracy theories provide a way to restore feelings of control and order.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n For example, it features a section heading, \u201cConspiracy as contagion.\u201d In this section, the author explores the \u201cpsychological research\u201d that tells us that those who believe in one conspiracy theory are highly likely to believe in others.<\/p>\n \u201cThis ability to hold two contradictory thoughts goes to the nature of conspiracy theories and their believers. Psychological research has shown that the only trait that consistently indicates the probability someone will believe in a conspiracy theory is if that person believes in other conspiracy theories.\u201d<\/p>\n As deHaven-Smith explains, this demonizing of those who draw connections between different conspiracies has a chilling effect.<\/p>\n \u201cThis aversion is learned. Americans know that voicing suspicions about political elites will make them objects of hostility and derision.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"The](\"http:\/\/truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/11\/kennedy-couple.jpg?w=435&h=245\")
<\/a><\/p>\n